School & Public Stabbings

[HairOfTheDog]

All I see here is supposition and more dramatic scenarios (shocker coming from you). You should protest.

Are you kidding me? I would never protest against your free speech or anybody else's.

Plus, your serious flailings make me laugh, which I appreciate.

Anyway, Gunnar, it doesn't surprise me a bit that when presented with facts and solid rationale that conflict with your bullshit, you only see supposition. And, I'm sure it is truly dramatic, to you. Don't go changing, blind one.

[Maggot]

Men are more afraid of knives than guns I think. Women tend to be more scared of the bang stick. It's really not a big deal its just an opinion at any rate.

[Blindgreed1]

All I see here is supposition and more dramatic scenarios (shocker coming from you). You should protest.

Are you kidding me? I would never protest against your free speech or anybody else's.

Plus, your serious flailings make me laugh, which I appreciate.

Anyway, Gunnar, it doesn't surprise me a bit that when presented with facts and solid rationale that conflict with your bullshit, you only see supposition. And, I'm sure it is truly dramatic, to you. Don't go changing, blind one.

You've presented no facts or statistics to disprove any statement I've made in this thread. You can't because everything I've said in here is fact. You on the other hand have only pointed out the fact that guns are used to murder people (who knew?). I challenge you to prove that the gun laws in your state have been proven effective. You can't. Because they aren't effective. California's gun laws are exactly what I said they are. Security Theater. People in Ca. "feel safer" because they have strict gun laws, but the laws haven't protected anybody. Californian's still murder each other with guns more often than in states where there are no such gun laws. I have proven with facts and statistics that knives are just as dangerous as guns in the hands of a maniacal killer. Your popular opinion doesn't equate to fact my dear. If it did you could prove it without hypothetical scenarios.

[HairOfTheDog]

You've presented no facts or statistics to disprove any statement I've made in this thread. You can't because everything I've said in here is fact. You on the other hand have only pointed out the fact that guns are used to murder people (who knew?). I challenge you to prove that the gun laws in your state have been proven effective. You can't. Because they aren't effective. California's gun laws are exactly what I said they are. Security Theater. People in Ca. "feel safer" because they have strict gun laws, but the laws haven't protected anybody. Californian's still murder each other with guns more often than in states where there are no such gun laws. I have proven with facts and statistics that knives are just as dangerous as guns in the hands of a maniacal killer. Your popular opinion doesn't equate to fact my dear. If it did you could prove it without hypothetical scenarios.

You entered a discussion about a school stabbing and jumped into an anti gun-control agenda, straight off. Here are some non-hypothetical examples of the bullshit you posted in the process.

1. MS made a statement about it being easier to escape someone who he sees coming at him with a knife than it would be someone coming at him with a 'GUN'. See post 35. You insisted his point was invalid. Not so.

MS's point was valid. A knifeman can not inflict damage with the weapon unless he gets near enough for the blade to penetrate or slash the victim (unless he throws it and loses his weapon). It's impossible. However, it is possible and extremely common for bullets fired from guns to hit, penetrate, and inflict damage when the gunman is more than gun length's away from the intended victim.

Then, you responded with several posts about how knives kill more people than "rifles". We all know that handguns are used more often than rifles. We all know that semi-automatics aren't limited to rifles, not by a long shot. MS, said "gun" and you -- either because you were attempting to mislead or because your mind was too narrowly-focused on an old statement referencing a rifle-type example -- kept posting about how knives kill more people than rifles, which was totally irrelevant to the argument.

"Guns", which is what MS specifically posted, kill several times as many people as knives. That's a fact.

3. You responded to sally (see post 58) that a person more than 21 feet away in a movie theater would have the same chance of avoiding injury/death at the hands of a gunman wanting to kill as many people as a knifeman with the same goal. Not so.

A knifeman would have to make contact with every intended victim in order to injure or kill them, in an open or confined space. That's not true with a gunman. Bullets aimed at an intended victim can hit the victim from a distance. Stray bullets can injure and kill people. Ricochet bullets can injure and kill people. Bullets that exit one victim can enter and injure or kill another victim. All other factors equal, a gunman armed with a semi-automatic and sufficient ammo could do much more damage than a knifeman in the same movie theater.

James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 others in minutes in a crowded movie theater. His victim count included many people further away from him than 21 feet. If you really believe a man with a knife or two, even a skilled knifeman, would have had the opportunity/ability to run up and down the aisles of a filled movie theater and stab/slash 82 people in the same amount of time, you're in fantasy land with those fluffy and dramatic rainbows and unicorns of yours.

4. I made a statement that one of your specific contentions defied common sense. Your response: What defies common sense is thinking that making a law will make everyone safe. The fact that I can purchase a semi-automatic weapon doesn't make me a killer. It doesn't even mean that I will purchase one. Making it illegal to purchase one will have the same affect on public safety. -- Purely deflective and, again, totally irrelevant to the argument. I never mentioned anything about laws banning semi-automatic weapons in relation to you or anyone else.

5. After a wanna-be mass-murderer who couldn't get a hold of guns in California turned to a knife and failed to kill anyone with it, you're using that to challenge me to defend the effectiveness of California gun laws. That doesn't make sense, it's backwards logic. In any event, I never criticized, applauded or even mentioned California state gun laws in the School Stabbing thread.

Anyway, I like reading your posts. You argue and jump on a lot of posts by others, and some of us respond in kind (or do the same thing proactively ourselves, some more effectively than others.). It's not a big deal and nothing new. But, since you asked, I provided some examples of what I consider bullshit on your part in this thread.

[Blindgreed1]

You've presented no facts or statistics to disprove any statement I've made in this thread. You can't because everything I've said in here is fact. You on the other hand have only pointed out the fact that guns are used to murder people (who knew?). I challenge you to prove that the gun laws in your state have been proven effective. You can't. Because they aren't effective. California's gun laws are exactly what I said they are. Security Theater. People in Ca. "feel safer" because they have strict gun laws, but the laws haven't protected anybody. Californian's still murder each other with guns more often than in states where there are no such gun laws. I have proven with facts and statistics that knives are just as dangerous as guns in the hands of a maniacal killer. Your popular opinion doesn't equate to fact my dear. If it did you could prove it without hypothetical scenarios.

You entered a discussion about a school stabbing and jumped into an anti gun-control agenda, straight off. Here are some non-hypothetical examples of the bullshit you posted in the process.

1. MS made a statement about it being easier to escape someone who he sees coming at him with a knife than it would be someone coming at him with a 'GUN'. See post 35. You insisted his point was invalid. Not so.

MS's point was valid. A knifeman can not inflict damage with the weapon unless he gets near enough for the blade to penetrate or slash the victim (unless he throws it and loses his weapon). It's impossible. However, it is possible and extremely common for bullets fired from guns to hit, penetrate, and inflict damage when the gunman is more than gun length's away from the intended victim.

See training video

Then, you responded with several posts about how knives kill more people than "rifles". We all know that handguns are used more often than rifles. We all know that semi-automatics aren't limited to rifles, not by a long shot. MS, said "gun" and you -- either because you were attempting to mislead or because your mind was too narrowly-focused on an old statement referencing a rifle-type example -- kept posting about how knives kill more people than rifles, which was totally irrelevant to the argument.

MS and you have both made a statements against the evil assault rifle before, but it's a fact that knives are more lethal. totally relevant when it comes to picking a fight over gun control laws.

"Guns", which is what MS specifically posted, kill several times as many people as knives. That's a fact.

Restating the only fact I gave you credit for posting

3. You responded to sally (see post 58) that a person more than 21 feet away in a movie theater would have the same chance of avoiding injury/death at the hands of a gunman wanting to kill as many people as a knifeman with the same goal. Not so.

It is so. Statistically the odds of surviving are exactly the same.

A knifeman would have to make contact with every intended victim in order to injure or kill them, in an open or confined space. That's not true with a gunman. Bullets aimed at an intended victim can hit the victim from a distance. Stray bullets can injure and kill people. Ricochet bullets can injure and kill people. Bullets that exit one victim can enter and injure or kill another victim. All other factors equal, a gunman armed with a semi-automatic and sufficient ammo could do much more damage than a knifeman in the same movie theater.

James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 others in minutes in a crowded movie theater. His victim count included many people further away from him than 21 feet. If you really believe a man with a knife or two, even a skilled knifeman, would have had the opportunity/ability to run up and down the aisles of a filled movie theater and stab/slash 82 people in the same amount of time, you're in fantasy land with those fluffy and dramatic rainbows and unicorns of yours.

Was length of time to kill ever discussed? Didn't think so. Nice diversion though

4. I made a statement that one of your specific contentions defied common sense. Your response: What defies common sense is thinking that making a law will make everyone safe. The fact that I can purchase a semi-automatic weapon doesn't make me a killer. It doesn't even mean that I will purchase one. Making it illegal to purchase one will have the same affect on public safety. -- Purely deflective and, again, totally irrelevant to the argument. I never mentioned anything about laws banning semi-automatic weapons in relation to you or anyone else.

So you can do it, but nobody else can (see above where you discussed how long it would take someone to kill people with a knife). Gotcha!

5. After a wanna-be mass-murderer who couldn't get a hold of guns in California turned to a knife and failed to kill anyone with it, you're using that to challenge me to defend the effectiveness of California gun laws. That doesn't make sense, it's backwards logic. In any event, I never criticized, applauded or even mentioned California state gun laws in the School Stabbing thread.

Yes, one instance where someone couldn't get a gun and tried to kill people with a knife is an exception, especially in comparison to all of the murders in CA that occur using guns. CA and IL lead the nation.[/color]

Anyway, I like reading your posts. You argue and jump on a lot of posts by others, and some of us respond in kind (or do the same thing proactively ourselves, some more effectively than others.). It's not a big deal and nothing new. But, since you asked, I provided some examples of what I consider bullshit on your part in this thread.

Points addressed above. Good thing this isn't baseball, you'd have been out at your 3^rd strike.

[Midwest Spy]

BG, you, and apparently FU (though I don't really believe it) are the only ones who think someone will be able to kill as many people with a knife as they would with a gun, and yes, the evil assault-rifle, if they were to go on a school rampage.

No one else on earth would agree with you.

And, by the way, you're also the only one on earth that would prefer someone come at you with a gun (you're unarmed) instead of a knife.

Either you really believe what you're saying or you're a great troll.

I'm hoping for the latter.

[HairOfTheDog]

Man, you're delusional, Gunnar. You're not even in the ballpark at this point.

I've not once in this thread or any other made statements about the "evil assault rifle" or called for bans on semi-automatics.

There's no diversion in regards to "time" from me; it's just plain ignorant to suggest that time isn't a factor in trying to kill "as many people as you can" in a public mass murder. And, a valid comparison requires all factors being equal aside from the weapon, obviously.

James Holmes hit people throughout the large theater. Some of his bullets even penetrated walls and struck three people in an adjacent theater. They were much further than 21 feet from him. He couldn't have done that with a knife under the same circumstances. To keep insisting that statistics say otherwise is out of context and silly.

There's more, but you're just making shit up and spewing nonsense now so I'll leave it there.

[F.U.]

BG, you, and apparently FU (though I don't really believe it) are the only ones who think someone will be able to kill as many people with a knife as they would with a gun, and yes, the evil assault-rifle, if they were to go on a school rampage.

No one else on earth would agree with you.

And, by the way, you're also the only one on earth that would prefer someone come at you with a gun (you're unarmed) instead of a knife.

Either you really believe what you're saying or you're a great troll.

I'm hoping for the latter.

MS, what I said is the I, me personally, would rather take on a gunman than a knife man. I am speaking for myself here. Some people fear clowns, some fear the mail man, my fear is of being cut again. I've ben shot and that don't bother me as much as a knife wound does.

[Midwest Spy]

BG, you, and apparently FU (though I don't really believe it) are the only ones who think someone will be able to kill as many people with a knife as they would with a gun, and yes, the evil assault-rifle, if they were to go on a school rampage.

No one else on earth would agree with you.

And, by the way, you're also the only one on earth that would prefer someone come at you with a gun (you're unarmed) instead of a knife.

Either you really believe what you're saying or you're a great troll.

I'm hoping for the latter.

MS, what I said is the I, me personally, would rather take on a gunman than a knife man. I am speaking for myself here. Some people fear clowns, some fear the mail man, my fear is of being cut again. I've ben shot and that don't bother me as much as a knife wound does.

Sounds like you survived both?

However, fending off the knife attack (if you're facing the attacker, not being snuck up upon) seems like something that would be easier than having somebody empty his clip into your body?

[Blindgreed1]

Man, you're delusional, Gunnar. You're not even in the ballpark at this point.

I've not once in this thread or any other made statements about the "evil assault rifle" or called for bans on semi-automatics.

There's no diversion in regards to "time" from me; it's just plain ignorant to suggest that time isn't a factor in trying to kill "as many people as you can" in a public mass murder. And, a valid comparison requires all factors being equal aside from the weapon, obviously.

James Holmes hit people throughout the large theater. Some of his bullets even penetrated walls and struck three people in an adjacent theater. They were much further than 21 feet from him. He couldn't have done that with a knife under the same circumstances. To keep insisting that statistics say otherwise is out of context and silly.

There's more, but you're just making shit up and spewing nonsense now so I'll leave it there.

Apparently odds and statistics is beyond your capacity. Is every mass murder the same as the John Holmes scenario? No. Sometimes there are no fatalities. In most cases there are no stray bullet fatalities. The John Holmes scenario is what statistical analysts call an outlier. I'm not going to belittle you for your inability to understand it, or call you slow or silly. I'm just going to simply state that you're wrong.

[HairOfTheDog]

Don't worry about me, Gunnar. Mocking is part of the fun here.

Plus, if I make a silly argument and somebody calls it silly, I don't feel belittled at all.

Anyway, YOU specifically applied whatever stats to which you're referring to movie theater mass murders. You did that. So you applied general stats incorrectly (out of context), unless you have stats that specially apply to movie theater mass murders with guns vs knives. If so, post them up. If they confirm your contention, I will gladly acknowledge that I stand corrected.

[HairOfTheDog]

Update to post #17 -- GUILTY PLEA


^ Christopher Plaskon, 18, accepted a plea bargain during a brief appearance in Connecticut's Milford Superior Court.

Plaskon was charged with killing 16-year-old Maren Sanchez at Jonathan Law High School in Milford on April 25, 2014, after his family and friends said he became upset that Sanchez turned down his prom invitation.

Plaskon was held at a psychiatric hospital after the stabbing. His attorneys said he showed signs of psychosis and they were considering an insanity defense. They took a plea deal instead and Plaskon is looking at 25 years. Sentencing is set for June 6.


Maren Sanchez ^, an honor roll student, was fatally attacked by Plaskon in a first-floor hallway at about 7:15 a.m. on April 25, 2014, the day of the junior prom. Students described an emotional scene where people were crying as police and paramedics swarmed the school.

A witness tried to pull Plaskon off Sanchez during the stabbing attack, and another saw Plaskon discard a bloody knife, according to an arrest warrant affidavit. Plaskon was taken to the principal's office in bloody clothing and told police, "I did it. Just arrest me," according to the affidavit.

Ref: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-...n-sanchez/

[Cutz]

You know, it's sad to say, but I almost feel better about the crime of passion, non-premeditated attacks like above. Like, "well, at least he didn't kill 15 people and then himself."

Gah, desensitization sucks.

[BigMark]

Death by a thousand cuts.

[Blindgreed1]

You know, it's sad to say, but I almost feel better about the crime of passion, non-premeditated attacks like above. Like, "well, at least he didn't kill 15 people and then himself."

Gah, desensitization sucks.

According to some here it doesn't exist.

[BlueTiki]

You know, it's sad to say, but I almost feel better about the crime of passion, non-premeditated attacks like above. Like, "well, at least he didn't kill 15 people and then himself."

Gah, desensitization sucks.

According to some here it doesn't exist.

I use a topical cream.

Unfortunately, my fingers numb . . . and I can't put the cap back on the tube.

[Cutz]

What a coincidence, I use topical comedy.

[Duchess]

According to some here it doesn't exist.

Here in Mock?

[HairOfTheDog]

Houston 11-Year-Old Stabbed to Death / Arrest Made

This is so very sad.


^ Josue Flores was stabbed multiple times last month while walking home from a 6^th grade science club party. RIP.


^ Andre Timothy Jackson Jr., a homeless U.S. Marine Corps veteran, was arrested and charged on Friday. There is no indication that Jackson knew the boy.

Jackson, 27, is being held on $100,000 bond in the Harris County Jail. (I don't know if Jackson has documented mental illness, PTSD, or if police have uncovered any reason or motive at this point -- investigation underway).

Authorities originally arrested another man in connection with the murder, but released him after his alibi checked out.

The city launched a manhunt for the killer, who fled the scene after repeatedly stabbing Josue on May 17.

“It was senseless, it was brutal, it was cold-blooded and someone needs to pay the price for it so justice can be rendered,” Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said Saturday.

Jackson was discharged from the military in 2011. Since then, he has been arrested for misdemeanor offenses twice — for trespassing and for unlawfully carrying a weapon — and reached plea bargains for both.

HPD homicide Lt. John McGalin told the paper they tracked the suspect’s path from the murder scene by piecing together different video taken in the area. The footage showed him wearing a distinctive jacket, which they said they recovered when they took Jackson into custody at the Salvation Army where he was staying.

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/...-boy.html/

[Maggot]

That is heartbreaking. Poor kid was probably wondering why the entire time.